Certainly. As it has been said, three lefts do make a right!
This is problematic. Any perfect description of a motor will fail as an analogy. This is because all analogies must fail. A perfect description would not fail, therefore, it would fail as an analogy.
3 Likes
Right, @Swamidass , by DESIGNED, I DO INDEED mean Created… but some interpret “create” only in terms of the miraculous.
We here defend the proposition that God can create by means of the miraculous (what some call Special Creation), and He can create by means of Evolutionary processes. In some sense, this is also miraculous, but more typically it is the natural lawful nature of Evolution that is frequently discussed.
Both processes evoke a certain amount of mystery and fascination, and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive! It is not unusual for God’s faithful to believe God can and does sometimes make rain by means of miraculous processes … without denying that God also makes use of evaporation and condensation to make rain in a way that some would call less-than-miraculous - - though still wonderful and divine!
If Christian participants of these pages would focus on the mutual and unifying belief that our faith justifies the premise that God designs and creates, then we could actually discuss other topics…
2 Likes
A rotary motor is an assembly of parts for turning energy into rotary motion, regardless of scale, materials and energy source.
Here is a piezoelectric (rotary) motor:
Why don’t we go deeper on the bacterial flagellum and see where the metaphor breaks down?
Are you interested in learning, or just in arguing?
2 Likes
No, it would help far more if we went deeper into how it works.
1 Like
What have we been talking about for three hundred and multiple tens of posts? The ‘metaphor’, with your contributions, and it has not broken down. I will ignore your implicit accusation.
John, please begin. I started a list of ways in which the electric motor and the bacterial flagellar motor were similar and also different. Please continue to describe where the analogy (changed your term, because this is what we called it throughout) breaks down.
The analogy was shown several times to have failed as an identity of a motor. The materials used for construction, the electron vs. ion flow, etc. have all been discussed here.
EDIT: List below.
| Similarities | Dissimilarities |
|---|---|
| Rotates | Helical access at different angle than shaft |
| Drives a propeller | Runs on protons or ions vs. magnetic field |
| Contains a mounting plate (front bracket) | At high loads, more components become active |
| Contains a rotor. | Rotor configuration is variable. |
| Contains a stator. | Both bearings are at one end of shaft. |
| Direction (rot.) is based upon rotor config. | Made of protein, not metal. |
| Has two bearings. | No start circuit/run circuit (only one, single circuit.) |
| Has a seal mechanism to prevent fluid intrusion. | One is living, the other non-living. |
| Equivalent power to turboprop engine (5HP/LB)! | Runs nearly continuously (~26 discrete steps.) |
| Continuous duty. | Water cooled vs. air cooled. (Not really a difference because it is cooled by the medium in which it runs.) |
1 Like
No one seems to have replied to that.
1 Like
The flagellum is not made up of parts like those in the human designed motor. The flagellum is made up of proteins.
1 Like
Very little about mechanism. That’s my point. Do you not want to get deeper into the mechanism?
That’s what you want to argue, so you don’t want to dig deeper. I understand.
It was a question, and your refusal to answer it supports the hypothesis that you only want to argue (and win), not to learn more about God’s creation.
1 Like
OK. “Runs on protons or ions” is way too shallow to be useful.
The question is, what energy drives the motor and how is it transduced? This is clearer for the myosin motor, btw.
1 Like
Okay, but that’s not beginning… that’s criticizing one of my items in my list of ways that the electric motor and the bacterial flagellar motor are dissimilar. It was useful in terms of pointing out a dissimilarity between the two. The depth of the phrase was not the issue for that list. If it is now, elucidate.
For those who want even more analogies . . .
Muscle contractions are similar to pulling in a rope, hand over hand.
Flagellar motion is similar to pushing your kids on a merry-go-round, or spinning a keno wheel.
1 Like
The driven load and the coupling are irrelevant to the definition of a motor. (Sorry, @Michael_Callen 
)
The energy source is irrelevant to the definition/understanding of a motor.
I don’t see that as relevant to the understanding of a motor, just the distinctiveness of particular kinds of motors.
Likewise.
Likewise. (That is a function of the source of energy, not whether it is a motor or not. There is nothing that prohibits that construction in an induction motor, for instance, but it just is not as practical with respect to bearing loading and size. Other motors could be built that way, too.)
Again, the materials are not particularly relevant, but more relevant to the source of energy and the means by which it is provided. The piezo motor I posted above is fundamentally ceramic.
The flagellum’s motor has a reversing ‘switch’, does it not? And take away its energy source, it stops. The start/run circuit is external to the motor and not foundational to the understanding of what a motor is.
A flagellum’s motor is made of biological materials, but it is not ‘living’ because the motor does not reproduce itself.
I’m not sure what the point is here. Stepper motors can run continuously or not, with any multiple of steps.
Next?
Many motors have centrifugal or current activated switches, depending on speed or load, so again, that is not foundational to the understanding of what a rotary motor is.
Now you’re just trolling.
Nah, I don’t think so.
A perfect description will fail as an analogy, since there won’t be any need for an analogy, if the item under discussion (in this case, the motor that drives a rotary flagellum) is indeed a motor.